Well I tried a few different builds of xplor-nih tonight with the
following optimization flags for the gcc and g++ compilers...
testsuite in seconds
xplorpython tcl
-O3 -ffastma
On Dec 5, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
Do you mean using -fno-threadsafe-statics or do you have any other
inlining changes in mind?
That option mentions the word inline 0 times, while interesting and
worthwhile to test, I did mean these (from the man page):
-finline-limit=n
an
Mike,
Do you mean using -fno-threadsafe-statics or do you have any other
inlining changes in mind?
Jack
On Dec 4, 2005, at 3:09 PM, Jack Howarth wrote:
I have noticed that there was a significant speed regression in the
c++ code generation between gcc 3.3 and gcc 4.0.x.
Gotta wonder if changing the inlining parameters would help you.
On Sun, Dec 04, 2005 at 06:09:54PM -0500, Jack Howarth wrote:
> I was happy to see some recovery in the c++ code generation with
> gcc 4.1. Now xplor-nih only exhibits a 7% speed loss using g++-4.1
> compared to g++-3.3. I assume this is due to the total rewrite of
> the optimizers in gcc > 4.0
In benchmarking a build of xplor-nih (which is a mix of c++,c, and
fortran) built entirely under gcc 4.1 or built using gcc 4.1's gfortran
and either Apple's gcc 4.0.1 or gcc 3.3, I have noticed that there
was a significant speed regression in the c++ code generation between
gcc 3.3 and gcc 4.0
